Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:12:57 -0500 From: Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: frank xu <bsdman@hotmail.com>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: potentially simpler approach than scheduler activations. Message-ID: <20001117001257.B25846@electricjellyfish.net> In-Reply-To: <20001116203428.M18037@fw.wintelcom.net>; from Alfred Perlstein on Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 08:34:28PM -0800 References: <F99h9vXsFFsAitVGeSJ000001f0@hotmail.com> <20001116184200.L18037@fw.wintelcom.net> <20001116232358.A25846@electricjellyfish.net> <20001116203428.M18037@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 08:34:28PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Yes, there are all problems in Linuxthreads, but not KSE nor my > idea. i see how the aio/kqueue ideas can get around some of this, but if you're using rfork() based threads to span multiple processors, don't you still run into all the problems that come with using a process as a thread? or at least the overhead problems with switching processes and the overhead within the kernel data structures? it just seems like KSE's solve these problems in a more palatable way. -- garrett rooney my pid is inigo montoya. rooneg@electricjellyfish.net you kill -9 my parent process. http://electricjellyfish.net/ prepare to vi. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001117001257.B25846>